I hear that living in a home makes you more likely to get killed during a home invasion, therefore we should all just be homeless. I mean, it's not like the robbers have anything to do with it, it's our fault for wanting to have a place to live and for having stuff in it that they want to steal. Maybe we don't need to be homeless then, maybe we just need to throw out all of our stuff and then we'll be safe. I think this is the kind of message Arioch is trying to get across._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

> how do we know when a woman's behavior was appropriate and when it wasn't?

"you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment" - that is said by your idol, not me.

You demand a man to be aware, that his hairstyle or tattoo or whatever would scare the lone woman. You don't ask "how does a man know when his appearance or behavior...", you imply he should know because that is convenient to you.

Well, there is no definite manual like Arithmetics, where all your local culture is coded in its entirety. You usually grow up in some culture and look what this culture uses regularly and what considers marginal behavior. Kind of "business practices", they are not coded but observed around you.

Surely your observations is not exact and complete codex, but there is no complete codex to our lives and never will be.

> let all women cover themselves up
...or be free to choose other society, if that society would accept them.
The restriction of choice is evil.
However - while it would be considered rude - have you the right to claim "my way or highway" in your house ? If you do, so has any society.

Would you claim it should be normal to walk out naked and not cover you with a single cloth ? If not then how many cloths are inappropriately low and how many is inappropriately much ? And why it is your judgment that all the societies should obey ?

> don't you even dare look him in the eye!
I dislike those societies for hypocrisy. They claim that men are the only decisive and responsible strata, however they tend to clear men of all accusations and responsibilities like if men were... not adult ? not sane ? something like that.

However you're pushing for exact mirror of that society. He dared to though that woman may have share of responsibility (or blame if you like that dunno why) ! Blasphemy! Women can never have a shadow of blame be cast on her for... well. she's a woman!

That is just the mirror of those societies. And i would dislike them for very same reasons.

> it wouldn't even matter if a woman was naked in front of them
That is rather complex. Should we acknowledge that we have biological differences or not ? Should we search for extremes where people are completely animals or completely biology-less ratios ? Or we should get some balance ?

Succubus recently told something like "i was PMSing like a bitch" so should we, the men, respect you monthly cycles or completely ignore it ?
If you work in the water pool - should you go work there even in those days and don't you dare to paint the water? Or should we pay some attention to your biological side ? If latter maybe you woudld respect our biological side and acknowledge that naked women body is not just an object to us ?
Let us both have our biological weaknesses - or let none of us have.

Yes, our reaction to nudity is much stronger and much more irrational than yours. That is biology and it is not much different from your days.

> why the fuck is it that it is only women who should worry about the appropriateness of their behaviour

Never said this, those are your words.
But i definitely protest the implications that only men should worry.

Let's say i went in the street and started groping some buts. At best i'd be slapped, at worst i'd be caged. I did stepped out of line -> i was blamed and punished.

However "the line" is not only what is enjoyable to you. You know, we are the half the society too.

> I'm pretty sure NONE of us care
Great. You proudly claim "we, women, never care what those lowly men think, NONE of us" and you make an implication that then all the men should start care what women think ? God no. If you proclaim "NONE of us women care what you men think" then the only equal position would be "NONE of us men should care about your ideas either"

You don't care for our idea's ? fine. Then you just given up any right to demand us care for your ideas.
The only way a person can have the right to demand caring for his troubles is proactively caring for others troubles himselves. Women are not exceptions, they are not handicapped to demand benefits.

when you leave your home, do you lock the door?
or do you let it open out of dumb pride to enforce your habits?

My grand-granny did not locked the door, by the way. That was their local habit. And it worked for their society. That does not mean that here in the city, in another society, i would do as my grand-granny did in her village.

But you're free to leave the door open wide and then go one how it was UTTERLY UNEXPECTED that someone get in.

It does not mean he is not criminal, yet it means you did silly unreasonable thing. You challenged the society to show off, but you try to run away from consequences of failed challenge.

Dear arioch: I rescind what I said previously, you have proven yourself to be an utter and reprehensible piece of shit with your latest posts. I hope your a troll, 'cuz the alternative is so much worse.

I'm quoting you just in case you change your mind (which I doubt you will):

Arioch wrote:

> how do we know when a woman's behavior was appropriate and when it wasn't?

"you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment" - that is said by your idol, not me.

You demand a man to be aware, that his hairstyle or tattoo or whatever would scare the lone woman. You don't ask "how does a man know when his appearance or behavior...", you imply he should know because that is convenient to you.

Well, there is no definite manual like Arithmetics, where all your local culture is coded in its entirety. You usually grow up in some culture and look what this culture uses regularly and what considers marginal behavior. Kind of "business practices", they are not coded but observed around you.

Surely your observations is not exact and complete codex, but there is no complete codex to our lives and never will be.

> let all women cover themselves up
...or be free to choose other society, if that society would accept them.
The restriction of choice is evil.
However - while it would be considered rude - have you the right to claim "my way or highway" in your house ? If you do, so has any society.

Would you claim it should be normal to walk out naked and not cover you with a single cloth ? If not then how many cloths are inappropriately low and how many is inappropriately much ? And why it is your judgment that all the societies should obey ?

> don't you even dare look him in the eye!
I dislike those societies for hypocrisy. They claim that men are the only decisive and responsible strata, however they tend to clear men of all accusations and responsibilities like if men were... not adult ? not sane ? something like that.

However you're pushing for exact mirror of that society. He dared to though that woman may have share of responsibility (or blame if you like that dunno why) ! Blasphemy! Women can never have a shadow of blame be cast on her for... well. she's a woman!

That is just the mirror of those societies. And i would dislike them for very same reasons.

> it wouldn't even matter if a woman was naked in front of them
That is rather complex. Should we acknowledge that we have biological differences or not ? Should we search for extremes where people are completely animals or completely biology-less ratios ? Or we should get some balance ?

Succubus recently told something like "i was PMSing like a bitch" so should we, the men, respect you monthly cycles or completely ignore it ?
If you work in the water pool - should you go work there even in those days and don't you dare to paint the water? Or should we pay some attention to your biological side ? If latter maybe you woudld respect our biological side and acknowledge that naked women body is not just an object to us ?
Let us both have our biological weaknesses - or let none of us have.

Yes, our reaction to nudity is much stronger and much more irrational than yours. That is biology and it is not much different from your days.

> why the fuck is it that it is only women who should worry about the appropriateness of their behaviour

Never said this, those are your words.
But i definitely protest the implications that only men should worry.

Let's say i went in the street and started groping some buts. At best i'd be slapped, at worst i'd be caged. I did stepped out of line -> i was blamed and punished.

However "the line" is not only what is enjoyable to you. You know, we are the half the society too.

> I'm pretty sure NONE of us care
Great. You proudly claim "we, women, never care what those lowly men think, NONE of us" and you make an implication that then all the men should start care what women think ? God no. If you proclaim "NONE of us women care what you men think" then the only equal position would be "NONE of us men should care about your ideas either"

You don't care for our idea's ? fine. Then you just given up any right to demand us care for your ideas.
The only way a person can have the right to demand caring for his troubles is proactively caring for others troubles himselves. Women are not exceptions, they are not handicapped to demand benefits.

Arioch, my point was, that you can't go around saying that the word faggot only applies in some cases, when it 99.9999999999999% used as a slur.

My point in bringing up the term of "bastard" is that citing former historical meanings is useless. We don't live in the past, we live in the present. "Bastard", like "faggot" has a completely different meaning and is used in a completely different context.

While I don't completely agree with profiling people as potential rapists on looks alone (behaviour is a completely different ballgame), I can tell you if you think women who get raped deserve it because of how they dress or where they are, you are a complete and utter fuckwit.

(Of course, I'm a little biased, because I'm a big, tall, pale white guy with long hair who tends to dress a little oddly. Do black shirts, white ties and plaid trucker jackets send of rapist signals? Research is inconclusive.)_________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

Dear Darqcyde: you have proven yourself a paladin of new religion, that considers any dissent to be blasphemy only worth of cursing and never of considering.

Any attitude except full and unconditional obedience, means in your eyes that you're facing suppressive person. You don't want to try to understand why and how different people from other societies feel and think, still you feel the right to dictate them how they should feel and think to let you be comfortably clear.

Astonishingly similar attitude was described as mainstream in revolutionists circles in the beginning of XX century, and they also had that zeal for their Only True Theory, and when got power to implement their theories they inevitable appeared loyal enough enough to eradicate all obstacles, that they could not bend into it.

I doubt though that your faith would make you happy and solve all your problems, as you hope it must.

Last edited by Arioch on Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Arioch, my point was, that you can't go around saying that the word faggot only applies in some cases, when it 99.9999999999999% used as a slur.

My point as well.

Quote:

My point in bringing up the term of "bastard" is that citing former historical meanings is useless.

But it was you bringing up "technical terms" i did not used it in historical meaning but in a generally and vaguely insulting word.

Let us try to rephrase.
In today common sense, in the saying like "all faggots are bastards", the word "faggots" cannot denote any other group of people than the same group that can be referenced as "male gays".

This statement, does it look correct to you ?

> you if you think women who get raped deserve it because of how they

Don't say "if", you're trying to act like i said deserved, while i refuted the word.

I repeat the example again: the person jumped out the window. He was not saving himself from fire or bandits. He just jumped out. Maybe he underestimated the risk, maybe he though that gravity is unjust or maybe he just did not think at all, "back then it seemed to me a great idea". Would you say that person deserved his injuries ? Would you say those injuries had no correlation with his behavior and choices? Would you say that person did had no influence upon having injuries or not ?

I believe you know more words than sole "deserve" then please choose the one that suits you.

Quote:

(Of course, I'm a little biased, because I'm a big, tall, pale white guy with long hair who tends to dress a little oddly. Do black shirts, white ties and plaid trucker jackets send of rapist signals? Research is inconclusive.)

So you now almost started asking forgiving that you have your favorite style of clothes, different from suggested by some blog writer. Good heavens, it just so like wearing jeans or earring in Soviet Union. "Please, don't think i am bad, for i just have my preferences about outfit!"

You say you're biased for you have your own non-mainstream outfit preferences. Then who is not biased, may i ask you ? Who follows mainstream ? Who would not dare to "dress oddly" - they are unbiased ? Whome you already are surrendering the authority to judge you and your style, which should be odd and which not ?

In today common sense, in the saying like "all faggots are bastards", the word "faggots" cannot denote any other group of people than the same group that can be referenced as "male gays".

Yes, because at this point the term "faggot" has become such an overused slur that it means about as much as "bastard". You could just as well be saying "All assholes are bastards", or "All douchebags are bastards". the main point is though; you should stop using that example. It's overall just not acceptable.

Quote:

I repeat the example again: the person jumped out the window. He was not saving himself from fire or bandits. He just jumped out. Maybe he underestimated the risk, maybe he though that gravity is unjust or maybe he just did not think at all, "back then it seemed to me a great idea". Would you say that person deserved his injuries ? Would you say those injuries had no correlation with his behavior and choices? Would you say that person did had no influence upon having injuries or not ?

The difference is: Gravity is pretty much an unstoppable force, which applies to all groups, be it women, children, or men. Rapists are stoppable forces, for which there exists no place in our world, which almost always target women.

If gravity stalked the man, broke into his apartment and waited for him to come home, and then proceeded to force him out the window, then you might have a case. But I have yet to see gravity attempt to rape someone.

If gravity tended to waylay people in dark alleyways and attempt to force their will upon them, then you might have a case.

There shouldn't be a correlation between going out at night and being raped. There just shouldn't. You can't say that half the population should stay inside at night and not wear any kind of revealing or "appealing" clothing. That's absurd.

Quote:

So you now almost started asking forgiving that you have your favorite style of clothes, different from suggested by some blog writer. Good heavens, it just so like wearing jeans or earring in Soviet Union. "Please, don't think i am bad, for i just have my preferences about outfit!"

I think this might be a language barrier thing, but I was making a joke. I give zero fucks if someone thinks I look like a rapist. Because unless someone maces me because it (which would be assault, especially given the fact that I never speak to strangers I randomly meet on the street unless they talk to me first), it doesn't harm me a bit. Not one, little, bit. People are entitled to their opinion, if they want to see me as a potential threat, it's not my loss._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

If there is one street you drive down to get home from work, and that street is widely known to be dangerous -- shitloads of cars get jacked on this street -- and then you get car jacked, that is the fault of the car jackers for being fucking carjackers.

The blame - yes, i agree.

But you don't "have the only street" like you have the choice how to dress, behave and so on.

So, no. You had a few roads to drive home. Perhaps that dangerous one could save you 15 minutes, or maybe there is no speed limit on that road and you like it fast (and those carjackers like the same). But you had the choice.

Quote:

It could be argued that you should have known better than to drive down that street

It could or it could not ? There are people who insists that since that is a road - there is no more room for considerations, weighting risk and all that dull stuff. If it is road - go and drive down it!
And then when they got wrecked they start all that "Oh, mommy, i did not knew it would end like this! i have zero responsibility for my choices!"

Quote:

This is all getting very confusing.

For native speaking ? Confusing ? Very???

Wow! then it should simple liek two by two for me!

Quote:

But if you told me 'I drove down carjacker alley and got carjacked!' I would say, lets call the police! not, you had it coming.

After the emergency call, would you say "Cool story! see ya tomorow in this place again" ? Or would you say "Think if that is proper road for you. The insurance may cover the car, but would not cover your death. Trust me, you better play on safe side even if it cost you extra 15 minutes daily" ?

That is the watershed.

Last edited by Arioch on Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total

Easy. That word was not what i brought to the topic. It was what i was given by your community to work with as an example.
If your community no more thinks this example is worth mentioning, then let's just discard it.

Quote:

Quote:

I repeat the example again: .... Would you say that person did had no influence upon having injuries or not ?

I asked you for the word, BTW, the word that you would describe the correlation before persons's action and consequences.

Quote:

Rapists are stoppable forces, for which there exists no place in our world, which almost always target women.

No place, no any place...
That sounds like you propose a death row to every rapist.
And since 18 years + 1 month boy after sex with 18 y. - 1 m. girl is technically a rapist, those are gloomy prospects.

Quote:

If gravity stalked the man, broke into his apartment

That is a very different example.
And it exhibit cold rational planning, did without even presence of the victim. It is not biological reaction.

Quote:

not wear any kind of revealing or "appealing" clothing. That's absurd.

The appealing clothes do lay burden over men ability to think rationally.
They do. If the did not - there was no commercials with all those girls instead of actual goods.

The golden standard of this place said that "woman do communicate all the times" - then they should care about possible miscommunication.
The golden standard of this place said that "you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance" - is this woman aware what does it communicate ?

Again, those are not my words even, those are blessed words of very Phaedra!

And communication starts with "co". It is not only "caring to listen" - it is also "caring to communicate legibly"

Quote:

Because unless someone maces me ... , it's not my loss.

So you chosen to break communications instead.
Sorry, i do not think that communication breakdown is not a loss for society and - in some share - for me too.

Dear Darqcyde: you have proven yourself a paladin of new religion, that considers any dissent to be blasphemy only worth of cursing and never of considering.

Any attitude except full and unconditional obedience, means in your eyes that you're facing suppressive person. You don't want to try to understand why and how different people from other societies feel and think, still you feel the right to dictate them how they should feel and think to let you be comfortably clear.

YEAH DARQCYDE!!! People should be allowed to believe that sometimes, rape victims deserve to be raped because of how they dress & where they go!! It's not a black-and-white issue!!_________________

mouse wrote:

almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.

I'm sorry, but if you think that it's the women's fault for "placing the burden" on men by wearing appealing clothing, then you have a problem. Last time I checked, I could look at appealing women and was not overcome by an urge to rape, molest, or otherwise threaten them in any way.

Last I checked, we stopped being animals a couple million years ago. You know, when we got this little thing called civilization.

Quote:

So you chosen to break communications instead.
Sorry, i do not think that communication breakdown is not a loss for society and - in some share - for me too.

Except I don't walk out on the streets randomly attempting to talk to women I know nothing about. There was no communication to be broken down, in that situation. I walk to get somewhere, other people walk to get somewhere, why is there any need to impede all this glorious forward movement toward objectives with petty talk with strangers? And furthermore, why would someone else lose out on this? It's a 2 party interaction. Unless I'm going to figure out the cure to cancer while chatting to some stranger on the bus and benefit all humanity, which I sorta doubt.

And where the hell did you get death sentences from. My point is, rapists shouldn't exist. They are an anomaly of the human existence. Something that should be mercilessly stamped out and not looked back upon. Lock 'em up, and throw away the key. I'm not a proponent of death sentences. I'm a proponent of long, long prison sentences._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

> And where the hell did you get death sentences from
You said "no place in the world", not in the streets, not in the society -in the world.

> mercilessly stamped out ... I'm a proponent of long, long prison sentences
I know a person being raped.
I know a person being forced to surrender his half of apartments, using rape accusation.
Hence in my personal experience it is double-edged sword.

I think you'd make a great weapon for black mailing.
For what i know someone Strauss-Kahn recently knew how it works.

Maybe someday every moment of your life would be recorded and every rape would be reported and proven "beyond doubt" no matter if victim wanted to report or not.

But now "long sentences" would hardly change much.

Well, i don't know of your jail hierarchies, perhaps pimps and rapists are elite of you jail, but in Russian criminal world "crackers of hairy safes" were historically considered very low classes, next to outlaws (in informal hierarchies, but in jails it might be more important than official one).

I don't think your average rapist really care and plans whether he'd get 2 years or 20.
Rather that "they would not caught" or at least "they would not prove".